tv Hillary Clinton CSPAN April 14, 2013 12:40am-1:15am EDT
he assigned new ada's. they re-investigated. if i knew then what i knew now, i would not have indicted these five. they being both the prosecutors and the defense, together in unison, went to a judge and asked in unison that the judge vacated convictions, which he did in a nano second. because he was no longer a predicate felon, raymond was released for time served and they were all out. the story -- the reactionary new york post plated from the prosecutor's point of view. this was a big mistake. they became the house organ for the police and the prosecutors over the next years. because it represents a gross failure on the part of all of us
involved in the media, everyone --se made relatively silent. remained relatively silent. the reactionary forces defined the narrator -- narrative for the next 10 years. the following year, 2003, the five launched a civil suit against the city of new york. the city of new york has nearly $1 billion to pay for such suits. they are settled out of court more often than not. when they go to truck, things happen within a reasonable amount of time. --when they go to trial, things happen within a reasonable amount of time. things have not taken place yet after 10 years. the five and the families have requested mountains of material has been requested mountains of material, which they cannot possibly reduce.-- produce. this is, you know, first, the language in the press is the language of jim crow america and
not the progressive america at the end of the 20th century. it has been reprehensible in the extreme. they subpoenaed all of our outtakes and notes, is seeking a phishing attempt of looking for inconsistencies. you told us you entered the park at 9:01 p.m. do you always lie? at least for the time being, they have fought back. they reviewed the city in its decision that we did -- we are city said we-- the are a one sided avdvocay piece. setting aside the fact that this is the most journalistic of all of the films we have done, even
if it was an advocacy piece, so what? haven't heard of the first amendment? was this country not border on the idea we can expect an opinion? does every editorial board of every newspaper in the country has to fear the intrusion of the government if they decide that they want the help of that newspaper to help them solve a crime? we are not obligated to do that. the judge found the and reversed the decision that had taken place for filmmakers and journalists. we are once again like the central park five drawn into this terrible story. i do not mean to suggest that we are the story. we are not. the most important thing has to be on the five and what they have gone through. they have had their lives blasted. they do not know if any of you sitting here remembers where you were when you were 14 or 15 years old or 16 years old. your life is unfolding.
who you will date and who you will go to prom with and when you'll get a car. all of that was robbed from they will never get it back. i have no interest in the se ttlement. what if they insist it goes to trial? we're interested that there be a settlement at the end of a long, run on sentence of injustice that is intolerable in a modern society that has claimed since its birth that all people are created equal. whoops, the founder owned 200 beings and never saw the contradiction. in the pledge allegiance, liberty and justice for all. it seems like it is liberty and justice for those who can afford have lighter comple
xions. we leave this case hanging as our field is left hanging, wondering what will be do? what is our responsibility? as journalists and fellow citizens to try to deal with what took place? ladies and gentlemen, i'm very sorry to say that this gripping story that we have tried to tell is a descent into hell. it is not a unique story. it happened yesterday and will probably happen today and it will happen tomorrow. and the stories that we tell each other and the way that we report the ongoing fax of our lives -- facts of our lives, the way we frame the events, call it movies or journalism, when do we stop and say, enough? when do we rise up and live out the true meaning of -- and judge people not by the color of their skin?
when you meet the five and the content of their character? thank you. [applause] >> to what do you attribute the failure of the press and media to investigate the report accurately? what lessons should the press takeaway for future cases like this? >> we are in a funny era. up to be the conscience of the country and also -- we have to be the conscience of the country and also be a business that makes money. there are demographics and the
ratings. we know that if it bleeds, it leads. this was so a fantastic and impossible story, so perfect a --ory for healthy skepticism. it disappeareed. that is the lesson. we have to do our job. it was not done here. >> your most journalistic of the films you produce, do you consider yourself a journalist? >> yes. i believe people have called me a historian and i accept that role reluctantly. i'm not an academic historian. i do not work for a living, or say, at a journalistic organization, but i believe in the course of collecting evidence, history has to apply. it was philip graham who owned the washington post who says
that journalism is the first rough draft of history. that is a wonderful turn of phrase, except when you realize that no one ever turned in a rough draft. what you see in this case is a really sloppy, shoddy rough draft. in history, we have to be much more mindful to triangulate with multiple sources and to get data more accurately by finding out what historical record covers it. it is ongoing. we felt in this case we would move in stylistically quite differently from other films. it is energetic, but hitting, they have popped that was beginning to develop.-- the hip hop that was beginning to
develop. the anarchy that seemed to hit the city. he did that in favor of a war rigorous -- instead of a -- we did that instead of a more rigorous style. we did that in a way to be as journalistic as possible. >> the film takes us back to 1989. it talks about the rush of the media, the public, the legal system. do you recall your own response back then? >> i live and work in a little village in new hampshire. i wanted to work with an editor and i did editing in new york city. it needed weekly to new york. i was in new york -- i commuted weekly to new york. i was in new york. no one could help but the in an avalanche of coverage. it was on every news station and every tabloid. they were all an intense
competition, screaming for the loudest kind of headlines. it was hard to miss. what happened? the sense of falling into a bottomless pit. i did note later on from the distance of new hampshire that when they were -- they have the convictions vacated, it had such little notice in comparison. a committed the other forces to sort of suggest the insane alternative narratives. city maintains that they finished off what reyes started. or that they must have done something. they fasten late like impound-- they vasicillate like ping pong arguments.en
>> a follow-up to the earlier question. at the time this is being reported, do the journalists have access to the confessions? do they see the inconsistencies that were clear? >> that is a good question. i wish my daughter, etc., was here. she would know instantly. -- daughter, sarah, was here. she would know instantly. the holdout jury member was smart enough to see what was going on and feeling like the detectives were lying. they consider them suspects from the get-go. this was horrible. they have in available from the moment of the trial, if not before. >> the film does mention the
other victim, the victim of the rape in central park. but she is not interviewed in the film. what reaction has she given to it? >> i do not know her. we normally do not say the names of victims. she wrote a book called "i am the central park jogger.? detail to recovery. she wrote about her road to recovery. she has no memory of what happened. she woke up and they filled in --is firm and in neurological rological gapmanent neu
she had about that night. thank goodness she remembers putting on her jottings and remembers nothing until waking up. i goodness. when she is about to go public for the first time, one can imagine that the narrative as she has believed for so long did not happen that way. i asked her to participate and i respected her decision not to. i let her know that the film is playing near her and give her the heads up and warning that it would be. having seen the film, there's never a moment in the film when we do not return again and again to her extraordinary recovery and progress and understand that was the primary victim. there was a total of six. >> there is so much more i want to know. what happened in prison? what are the central park five doing now? are any of the police remorseful? >> as the film said, the police
investigated after the district attorney had been investigated and moved to vacate the convictions and a judge agreed. the police investigated. revinvestigating thmemselves, they found they did nothing w rong. as a new york times columnist pointed out in the film, they had gotten the wrong guys and had let the real guy continue to rape and murder subsequent to that. there has been no remorse expressed. it has been the exact opposite, a sort of contempt for the five and the extraordinary deliverance from this hell. >> what about the five now? where are they now? >> they are a remarkable group of human beings. i hope i could communicate that in my remarks. they all suffer, as many other family members do, from some
form of what would call ptsd. and another did not appear in the film. we are only allowed to record his voice. he change his name and escape to maryland and then to the deep south where he works as a forklift operator. he keeps his head down and pays his taxes and takes care of his kids. he still feels that someday someone is going to come and grab initialed shoulder and say, come this way. he is in contact with agreement every single day. we were able to lure him out for the closing night of the film festival november 15. he appeared for the first time since they were all together during the original crime in 1989. the other four are still in new
york. all still in the same neighborhood. perhaps one of the most is youssef. he works for it systems. he has several kids. amazing human being and great father. kevin and raymond have jobs. raymond works for an employee's union. i can't remember where kevin is. we see them a lot. the 16-year-old is now 40. he struggles in some ways because of the disabilities that the others have not. they weigh on him in a different way. the amazing thing is that they are alive. the intention was that they would not make it through this. no conspiracies, but just in the sense that in this new era of the new jim crow, it was assumed that they would disappear and
the oops mistake of we got the wrong guy could be covered up because these guys would disappear. instead, they remind us daily of the hero it perseverance -- heroic perseverance i wish i had myself. >> you talked about the film becoming a press freedom peace. what was it like having your work, your notes, your video under a subpoena and having to fight back? >> it was a mixed blessing. it was something incredibly foolish about the city subpoenaing records write-in the middle of the film. it was a publicist dream, right? [laughter] is it not? at the same time it created, and i think i can speak for sarah and dave as well, there is
something that struck at our got, that feeling that you have sometimes when you think you're driving too fast when you see the blue lights behind you. this meant something. this is felt on our effort, particularly the irony that we had spent so long and have been so conscientious and diligent and asking for them to please comment. honor us with a return phone call to say no. there were just be unanswered voice messages and e-mails. they would then start coming out with a tack that this was suddenly something they needed and it would be important for an investigation. more than that, they could and had a right to this because it was a one-sided advocacy piece. you felt, my goodness.this is kafka all over again.
>> where were the lawyers? why didn't they protect their client at the time? >> it is a sad aspect of the case, except for a court appointed attorney for one of the boys. he did a good job serving him.-- y.rvoming antron mcrcra the others were friends of the family. one was a divorce lawyer. he was incompetent. another handled raymond's case. he was out of his depth. another attorney i cannot remember his name. he served korey. at the time, everyone assumed
they were guilty. they were guilty. they had confessed. the question was, what soapbox this might present for one attorney? what can you do to my gate this mitigate this? people were not fitting things together. the coverage was so great. the african-american papers bought into it. most of their relatives shun them and ostracized these five boys. they assumed they were guilty. the tragedies within each of the families are expensive these guy mentioned that it is hard to recount them. suffice it to say, each of them separate in the obvious way that -- suffered in the obvious way that society had intended them to suffer by going to jail. but also in the losses that happened within their own families.
mothers and fathers and parents splitting up. super hero.her was his if his father had told him, stick to your guns, he wouldn't have confessed. it is only later after the painful memory of seeing his father lying dead that he suddenly realized what forgiveness could be. he has to go to his grave with all of that was left just by the slight chance. they say, play basketball. you can see his eyes going, what if i had done that? another's father said do not stand on the street corner. and he breaks down and cry.
>> we are almost out of time. i have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. on april 16, we have the president of iceland who will address the global resources in the arctic. april 17, we have the direct your of the office of national drug control policy. april 19, we'll have after donahoe, the postmaster general of the u.s. he will discuss the challenges of the evolving demands of the postal service. second, as i noted earlier, this is the eighth time that mr. brent is coming here to speak at the national press club. >> i have overstayed my welcome. [laughter] >> it's time we have him here, we are reminded not only that he is an outstanding filmmaker that helps us reveal much of our world, but also an outstanding
speaker. when the press club began, the spoken word was an art form. but fewer and fewer people are gifted at the use of the podium and the microphone as is mr. burns. he visits, he delivers an epic speech. he also reminds us of the great speakers who have come before him, such as our first speaker, franklin roosevelt and artists such as alfred hitchcock. he is truly more than our guest. he has become part of our club and our mission. today at the time we would normally give you your eigth national press club coffee mug. [laughter] instead we want to make you an honorary member of the national press club. [laughter] [applause]
>> i guess i am a card carrying journalist. thank you. >> you still have to answer one more question. >> in 45 seconds. >> this is the only film that does not have the ken burns voice in it. >> i never put my voice in the film. it is always narrated by someone else. all the films i have made is that they are not mine. there is a convenient in our society that get everything down to 140 characters. that a film by ken burns is a
reductionist thing. all of my films share coproducers and directors of equal importance. they should be acknowledged. i wish that they were here with me now. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for coming today. i would like to say thank you to the national press club staff for organizing today's event. as a reminder, you can find out more information about the national rest club and get and video of today's event at press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
then a form on gun laws and the second amendment. -- forum on gun laws and the second amendment. "washington journal" jeff mason discusses gun violence and immigration issues. ato, the backlog of claims the department of veterans affairs. also, the latest on developments of the korean peninsula. "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i really learned this week how humanizing politics are. it is about people that really into rack. -- interact. we learned that we can do this. we are capable of being leaders of our country. it is about working together and
finding common ground. >> before i was not that optimistic about the future. the media shows the negative aspects of our future. i think this program made us more optimistic about the future and more positive about where our country is going. from get negative opinions media outlets. every day they are working together. justice kagan was able to what aside differences and go hunting with justice scalia. they are able to eat lunch together. it happens every single day. >> president obama was saying that our country has always been in turmoil throughout its history. but we have always found a way to get through it. i'm not saying i'm not worried about the future. we have problems we need to fix. . look around this room i see people who want to make a difference in this country, who
want to do good. there are plenty of people who are our age that want to make a difference. i believe he will be able to solve the problems that we face today. , high school students meet in washington as part of the senate youth program. they met with leaders from all three branches of government, including president obama, justice kagan, and senator richard burr. here their insights on sunday .ight at 8 p.m. on c-span's "q " >> hillary clinton it gives the keynote address. she spoke about women's rights in the united states and around the world. .irst, tina brown she introduces secretary clinton. this is 35 minutes. [applause] >> welcome everybody to the women of the world summit. [applause]
we have an incredible night last night with meryl streep and angelina jolie, and those amazing women from pakistan. today we will bring you some extraordinary women telling extraordinary stories. of course, the most extraordinary of all is standing right next to me. [applause] before she lets you hear her amazing words today, i want you to conjure up an image. this image of a solitary woman in a house in rangoon. throughout her long years under house arrest in burma, separated from her husband and her two young boys, the heroic dissidents aung san suu kyi was sustained by poster she put up on her wall. was a poster from the 1995 united nations first world conference on women in beijing.
it was signed by the woman whose words at that conference served to motivate millions of others. you know those words first uttered by hillary clinton wearing that pink first lady suit at the podium in beijing. very much paler than the one she has on today. she said it there is one message that echoes from the conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights, once and for all. [cheers and applause] when hillary clinton spoke those words, killed in the patriarchal power struggle were ready to hear them. there were still were prepared for the earth words to reverberate through to succeeding decades. we hear there and go in the
voice of one of our co hearst's, the fearless somali doctor who has created a safe and peaceful civil society on her family's land for tens of thousands of internally displaced people. we will hear from a woman who survived rape and testified against the evils of rape. we hear their echo. the heart wrenchingly vulnerable, steely malala, who had not even been born when hillary spoke in somalia. how dare the taliban and take away my basic right to education? hillary rodham clinton spoke truth to power, but she did not leave it that. she has worked to recast the conversation in both work and deed. so often she was working unseen,
and private, individual groups of women in the world's most challenging places. she strode into the senate, the ultimate old boys' club. one of the finest minds of the 12th century. [laughter] as america secretary of state, she made women's rights and therefore human rights a central focus. not an afterthought, not a sidebar, but central. she issued directive to all embassies of the strategic imperative of advancing women's equality. she said it so well in 2011, when we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of nations and the world.
definitively refrained at the whole conversation about the advancement of women. first establish that women's rights are human rights, then explain that unshackling women is just good business. the big question about hillary is, what is next? [applause] >> i did not mean that in the way that every political handicapper me that, of course. will her agenda for women maintain its momentum now that she has moved on from the state department? what is next, for all of us here today, and the millions that she has inspired? hillary's words in beijing jolted us 17 years ago. they seem obvious now, but aren't all eternal truths self evident once someone has the work to speak them echoed and so it is with great pride that i